On page 736 (on a note), this book (written by Venerable Analayo) comparing Pali suttas and Agamas gives an argument against the idea that MN 128 speaks of the divine eye:
This is not the way the commentary understands this passage, however, as Ps IV 207,11 takes the expression “vision of forms” to stand for seeing forms with the divine eye, dassanañ ca rūpānan ti dibbacakkhunā rūpadassanañ ca sañjānāma. The commentarial explanation could be inspired by AN 8:64 at
AN IV 302,14, where to see forms and perceive lights leads to being able to converse with devas. In the
present context, however, the commentarial explanation does not seem to fit the context, pace Schlingloff 1985: 330, since the exercise of the divine eye requires the concentrative stability of the fourth jhāna, whereas in MN 128 and MĀ 72 the level of concentration achieved through stabilizing the vision of
lights and forms is evidently lower, leading at MN 128 at MN III 162,14 and MĀ 72 at T I 538c3 to
concentration with initial and sustained mental application, savitakka savicāra samādhi/有覺有觀定,
which corresponds to the first jhāna only.
I think it’s a good argument. This book also gives other arguments. It starts talking about MA 72 (parallel to MN 128) on page 731.
Incidentally, this passage is an argument in favor of visuddhimagga jhanas, page 736 :
This list of mental obstructions does not mention the first
two of the five hindrances, sensual desire and aversion. Their absence indicates that the
meditative development described in the present discourse sets in at a more advanced
stage, when these two comparatively gross mental defilements have been subdued and
a minimum degree of mental tranquillity has already been established. It is precisely at
this point, when the gross hindrances of sensual desire and aversion have been overcome and the mind becomes increasingly concentrated, that according to the Visuddhimagga’s account the mental sign, the nimitta, will manifest to the meditator.250 Thus it
seems that the present passage covers the same phenomena described in the Visuddhimagga in terms of a nimitta that needs to be stabilized and mastered in order to be able
to attain jhāna.
Sorry I can’t. But it is fairly obvious that we can imagine or dream about sights, and even touches. This is mental rūpa.
Most of them should be on the BSWA website. The one jhāna and lokuttarajjhāna is missing because it is copyrighted. The only other copyright article I have written is on the nature of Nibbāna, which you can find here.
Thanks for the kind feedback!
No, the mental image is gone at this stage. It’s an even more subtle aspect of perception.
Yes.
It is included in the rūpa described at SN22.59.
All sound in principle, but noise is obviously more problematic.
There is the freedom that comes from eliminating kāmacchanda, “sense desire”. This happens before jhāna and is a requirement for entering jhāna. Then there is the freedom of seclusion, vivicceva, which is the freedom from the five senses within a jhāna.
Yes, I see what you mean, but it’s true that I used to think that for rupa what really counted was the link with actual physical “sense organs”, so I thought that the “sensory perceptions” of dreams didn’t count as rupa because they aren’t linked to physical “sense organs”
Thank you very much! We are very lucky here to be able to discuss with scholars like you, thank you again. I find that the arguments of Venerable Sujato, Venerable Sunyo, your arguments, etc., are really often very very strong and powerful.
It’s secluded from sensual pleasures though Bhante, not the 5 senses. Nothing in that suggests one isn’t aware on some level of the other senses at all. So far the only reason for it meaning that is in already thinking it means that, it seems to me.
We have examples in the suttas of meditators “one upping” each other during absorption.
For example we have one (I can’t recall, but it may have been Alara Kalama) being said to have meditated (not sure in which jhana) amongst a royal entourage of elephants, carts, etcetera. passing by - and he did not hear it or see it.
So, the other meditator (could have been the Buddha himself) is said to have meditated during a lightening storm which killed three people - and he did not notice.
I’m not always one to assume, but I don’t think total non perception of sound is the meaning of thorn. As I write this post I’m surrounded by various sounds which I’m sure I’m taking little note of.
Like you say, in the forest there are many sounds. I’d go out on a limb and say one can reach very minimal stages of absorption without paying much mind to surrounding sounds (especially in a forest environment).
It’s when a person comes by and addresses you (or something like that) where the absorption is broken or stifled.
The sutta says that three types of pain are not present during jhana:
The pain and sadness connected with sensual pleasures.
The pain and sadness connected with the unskillful.
The pain and sadness connected with the skillful.
But for the moment I don’t see how this sutta explicitly talks about physical pain.
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding your post: is your reason your interpretation of Pali? Would you have translated it differently, with “objects of the senses” rather than “sensual pleasure”?
In this book, Venerable Analayo writes the following about Upakkilesa Sutta:
In the Upakkilesa-sutta the experience of inner light (and
forms) only serves to reflect whether the mind is becoming more
concentrated or else has succumbed to some minor defilement
that obstructs entry into absorption. The discourse does not give
the impression that the light itself should become the object
of meditation, in fact no object of meditation is described at
all. This holds similarly for the standard account of absorption
attainment in the discourses, which describes the condition of the
mind by listing the mental factors characteristic of a particular
level of absorption but without any additional reference to an
object employed for entering absorption
(…)
By pointing out that the description in the Upakkilesa-sutta
does not present the experience of light as the object of the
practice, I do not intend to imply that there is anything wrong
in focusing on the light, once it has become naturally bright and
stable. My point is only that this mode of practice is not evident
in the Upakkilesa-sutta and, although for many meditators it can
be a very powerful approach, it need not be considered the only
possible route into absorption
In this book, Venerable Analaya seems to put the importance of MN 128 in achieving absorption into perspective.
Incidentally, I noticed that in this book and this article, he conceives of Anapanasati not as a simple focusing of attention on one point of the breath, but as a more open and flexible experience of our experience.
Incidentally, a little anecdote, here Venerable Analayo explains in this video that a few years ago he had a tendency to get angry quickly, and he practiced focused concentration at a point on the breath: he says that this focused concentration increased his tendency to anger.
Also, he says something very similar to Venerable @kumara 's idea that samadhi is “composure” rather than concentration, here.
@Ceisiwr You seem to think that during jhana, the meditator has a subtle body. But DN 2 (and other suttas) speak, only after the fourth jhana, of a “mind-made body” which is physical despite the fact that it is a creation of the mind. Don’t you think it’s rather at this point that there’s a subtle deva body? If so, this seems to imply that during the jhanas, there is no such subtle physical body.
That which can be most harmful to the meditator is absorption samādhi (jhāna), the samādhi with deep, sustained calm. This samādhi brings great peace. Where there is peace, there is happiness. When there is happiness, attachment and clinging to that happiness arise. The meditator doesn’t want to contemplate anything else, he just wants to indulge in that pleasant feeling. When we have been practising for a long time we may become adept at entering this samādhi very quickly. As soon as we start to note our meditation object, the mind enters calm, and we don’t want to come out to investigate anything. We just get stuck on that happiness. This is a danger to one who is practising meditation. (from A Taste of Freedom)
Bear in mind the above is using orthodox Theravadin terminology.
This too has been discussed at length before with many good reasons given why this refers to the five senses. I doubt it will be productive to engage in this once more.
Bhante, this is another way of saying, “We’ve discussed among ourselves before and have arrived at the right understanding, and so I don’t see how any further discussion would be useful. Case closed.”
As an interesting fact for you, Geoff Shatz (nyana) used the composure translation prior to your book.
For example from his old website measureless mind:
Integral Meditative Composure (Sammasamadhi)
The Pali noun samadhi is related to the verb samadahati, which means “to put together,” “to join,” “to combine,” “to collect,” and the past participle of the same verb, samahita, meaning “collected,” “composed.” Thus, samadhi indicates “collecting” one’s mind, and specifically in the context of sammasamadhi, the mind composed in meditation. It is this composed mental unification which is termed singleness of mind (cittekaggata). It is also called jhana.
I’m curious if you could go into more detail about your understanding of rūpasaññā in jhāna. Bhante @sujato in his writings and notes talks of the rūpa experienced in jhāna as being the nimitta or remnants of the nimitta, such as light. But you and Ajahn Brahm, etc. seem to have a different interpretation — I’m wondering if this is just a difference in phrasing but not meaning, or if there is a difference in meaning/understanding of perception within jhāna.
In the workshop on sammā samādhi, I think there was some brief mention of this with very little detail. It was essentially said that it’s hard to describe how rūpa is part of the jhāna without comparison to the arūpa states. I understand the subtlety in terms of the mind mostly experiencing rūpa as more of the echoes/memory of refined proprioception without the five senses, a kind of extrapolated space derived from the previous knowledge of the body filled with bliss and awareness. But this seems to be a point with various interpretations from various practitioners and sects.
This is one of the things I’ve seen discussed in much less detail. Five senses in relation to jhāna, lots of talk. But as for the details of the mental experience, there seems to be some difference that is set aside and dominated by the discussion of the senses. As @Ceisiwr mentioned, other early schools of Buddhism interpreted the jhānas as including perceptions of a subtle, radiant body or various nimittas, but others interpret the nimittas as only being present pre-jhāna. This also relates to the ‘debates’ about experiencing nimittas vs. ‘absorbing’ into nimittas, and the relation of this to jhāna, the eight liberations (vimokkhā), etc.
Any thoughts (from either of the venerables or others)?
It’s tricky because it’s so refined. It’s a bit like asking what vitakka-vicāra is in first jhāna, except it’s even more profound. It’s hard to grasp this until you’ve had a proper first jhāna experience. In the same way, understanding the remaining rūpasaññā is only really possible when you go beyond it, that is, reach the first immaterial attainment.
What we can say is that it is not like the nimitta before jhāna. Entering a jhāna is commonly experienced as falling into or being engulfed by the nimitta. From this it might be that the remaining “brightness” of the mind is somehow tied to rūpa. I have to admit that this is somewhat speculative. Have you looked at the discussion in the Visuddhimagga?
It’s when a mendicant—due to the seclusion from attachments, the giving up of unskillful qualities, and the complete settling of physical discomfort—quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. (Ven. Sujato)
There is the case where a monk—from being secluded from acquisitions, from the abandoning of unskillful qualities, from the entire calming of bodily discomfort, quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. (Ven. Ṭhānissaro)
But with Ven. Bodhi, it does not seem that the sutta speaks of physical pain:
Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. (Ven. Bodhi)
What do you think? Can MN 64 be used as evidence to show that there can be no physical pain during the first jhana?
If we do take it this way, and it seems like we should then both SN 48.40 (contradicted by other suttas, some cited in this long thread) and it’s agama parallel (contradicted by MN 64 quote you share) are contradicted by different parts of the canon. It makes me want to throw away both of them as being later works instead of trying to find the ‘correct’ one.
Interesting, thank you. This brings us back to the original question of the topic.
As a reminder, SN 48.40 says that physical pain disappears in the first jhana, and its parallel (found in several Buddhist schools) says that physical pain disappears in the second jhana. Taking the translation of Ven. Sujato and Ven. Thanissaro’s translation, we get the impression that MN 64 says that physical pain disappears at the first jhana, whereas with Ven. Bodhi’s translation, we get the impression that MN 64 is simply saying that bodily inertia (I understand “bodily heaviness”) disappears with the first jhana.
Looking in the DPD dictionary, it says that the word that Ven. Sujato and Ven. Thanissaro translate as “physical/bodily discomfort” is “kāyaduṭṭhullānaṁ” and this word means “sluggishness; physical inertia; bodily heaviness”, and “duṭṭhulla” means “heaviness; discomfort; inertia;”.
Taking into account what the dictionary says, I have the impression that the term “physical/bodily incomfort” is too broad, and that the word actually means a kind of “bodily heaviness/apathy”.
But I must point out that I know nothing at all about Pali. Perhaps someone here can explain the meaning of this passage from the sutta!?
